Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Outrageous and unsafe ADS-B non-use in the J curve by Airservices

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Outrageous and unsafe ADS-B non-use in the J curve by Airservices

Old 7th Feb 2017, 02:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Outrageous and unsafe ADS-B non-use in the J curve by Airservices

I have started a new thread on this as it is a very important issue, and quite separate to just Tasmania.

On the thread "Dick vs ADS-B vs ASA vs CASA vs Cambridge in bad wx", Mr Approach (no doubt someone informed) has made the most extraordinary revelations in post #37. Here is the first one:

“ADS-B is not in use in terminal areas (TMA) although Class D tower controllers can see the returns on a device called TSAD. This is a situational awareness tool …”
Then most importantly (and most disappointingly), he states:

“ADS-B is only available for the provision of 5 NM separation, it is not displayed in Class C TMA where 3NM or less is normal.”
Can you believe this? With Airservices probably spending over $100 million, and with the claimed $30 million to be spent by GA on ADS-B, they are not actually using it where it is most useful for safety.

Everyone knows that the provision of ADS-B over the remote area above FL290 was mainly ego driven, so Airservices could tell the world that they had covered Australia. Of course, the risk there was non-existent. With so little traffic, everyone on full position reporting operating IFR under a clearance, and the best TCAS equipment, there was simply an imperceptibly small chance of a mid-air.

It was considered by most that when the ADS-B was fitted – especially within the J curve – that this would then be used to improve safety. CASA (under Airservices’ direction) has mandated the most expensive form of GPS to make sure that the ADS-B signal is accurate to within 20 or 30 metres.

However we now read that in fact it can only be used for 5 nautical mile separation. This can only be because Airservices has saved money by not updating the terminal equipment. This is simply outrageous. It is clear that the risk is greatest in the terminal area – not only for air to air collision (which admittedly is small) but more importantly for a controlled flight into terrain.

We have seen Airservices force the most draconian and expensive ADS-B requirements on the GA industry, including the existing mandate for all commercial aircraft flying in cloud. No other country yet has such a restrictive and expensive mandate. Yet, as stated above, they don’t even use the system to provide a service.

It sounds to me as if the whole issue is industrial. That is, industrial resistance to change by the air traffic controllers has resulted in a system where our aircraft are fitted with some of the best ADS-B transceivers in the world, but they are not actually used in the J curve in Australia to help prevent accidents.

Yes, it does require a deal with the air traffic controllers. Clearly the ones in the Class D towers need to be de-skilled and just concentrate on the circuit area and the surface, whilst the enroute controllers of the airspace above need to be trained to do approach work as they do everywhere else in the world.

The cost of having an approach cell (as we do now) for every Class D airport in Australia would be ridiculous, and that is clearly why we don’t provide the service. If other countries such as the USA can train air traffic controllers to do both enroute and approach work, there is no reason why it can’t be done here.

This is clearly a repeat of what I mentioned on page 39 of Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom, where the ABC could not change over from film to electronic camera equipment, because of an industrial dispute and pathetic management within the organisation. See page 39 here.

Back in 1990, when I was Chairman of the CAA, we solved the ridiculous problem of Civil Air insisting that we have highly paid air traffic controllers working as operational controllers. We did it by paying them out with lots of money. That is what clearly needs to be done here.

The fact that they don’t even provide a service at Ballina down to the limits of surveillance just shows how pathetic the leadership is.

I will presume we will end up with deaths before anything is done. I will say here, what a ridiculous waste to have in Australia the best and most accurate ADS-B equipment in aircraft in the world, but not actually use it in approach airspace. It is completely irresponsible.

If I was an air traffic controller involved in stopping these more modern changes, I would feel very embarrassed.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 03:26
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Everyone knows that the provision of ADS-B over the remote area above FL290 was mainly ego driven, so Airservices could tell the world that they had covered Australia. Of course, the risk there was non-existent. With so little traffic, everyone on full position reporting operating IFR under a clearance, and the best TCAS equipment, there was simply an imperceptibly small chance of a mid-air.

Dick you are making up "facts" here to support a bad argument. The remote areas you mention are overflown by numerous aircraft above FL290. Just about everything to and from Asia goes this way. A look at Plane Finder a short time ago sowed around fifty aircraft there and that's in a quiet time. ADS-B which gives on screen surveillance has allowed separation to be reduced from the large time and distance standards to five miles. Add RVSM and flexible tracking to this and there have been large savings in distance, time and fuel. When I was in Alice Tower in the 80s, the enroute controlled in AS TWR controlled 200nm radius up to FL400. With the improved surveillance and communication, Alice now has a Class D tower 15 DME radius up to 4500.

You say that ADS-B should be used by Class D tower controllers. This was covered in your Tasmanian posts. Take Broome. There is a single ADS-B station there. One is not enough to guarantee surveillance if it fails. At high level, there is more coverage. Who would foot the bill th install extra stations n the Broome area? A similar situation exists in Hobart. The five versus three mile separation was also explained. The processors for the Tasmanian ADS-B sites are in Melbourne. This causes latency problems if trying to use three miles in the HB TMA.

You have often said that you are attacking the system and not the controllers but you have included the following:
That is, industrial resistance to change by the air traffic controllers...
fujii is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 04:57
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
I have never said that the ADSB should be used by the class D tower controllers

Totally the opposite. The airspace when IMC exists should be the responsibility of the centre controller with the survailence rating and the equipment .

That's how it works in leading aviation countries

Total rubbish about needing multiple stations. In many parts of Australia in the high level enroute airspace just one ADSB station at a time provides the full service

There is only one rotating radar head in Canberra. If it goes down there are procedures to cope. Same with ADSB
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 05:47
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No Dick. There may only be one radar at CB airport itself for TAR but there will also be enroute coverage nearby. The same as ML has Gellibrand Hill and Mt Macedon. Adelaide TAR on the airport and MLF enroute.
fujii is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 07:04
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Radar will continue to exist in the terminal areas at the Class C zones where a primary radar source is required to detect non transponder incursions of the CTR.
fujii is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 08:47
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Dick _ I am pretty sure it is not industrial action, there would be no change to the employment of ATCs if ADS-B was available in Class C TMAs. It is purely a financial decision based on the availability of the new radars. Sure some money needs to be spent but it was spent to introduce multilateration to the Sydney area and certify the system for both 3NM separation and PRM operations.

As for operational control, as I recall the ATCs went quietly and calmly having been given VR because their jobs had been abolished. We now have operational control by companies, which pretty much devolves instantly to the pilots, and leaves us with two B737s diverting to Mildura when it was foggy. But that is a different thread...

To return to ADS-B, it is not the J-curve where the issues are. The J-curve does not need ADS-B, but it will one day when the current radars are phased out. The issue I think you are referring to is the mandating of expensive equipment for all IFR aircraft when some of those aircraft would never operate in controlled airspace or at least in airspace where ADS-B was not going to be used. CASA has gone some way to relieving that situation.

The question now is - if all of our IFR aircraft have ADS-B and there is substantial ADS-B coverage below FL290, why is it not being utilised to provide a service to everyone who had to buy the equipment? A single ADS-B unit can be augmented by more nearby, if there is a will. However do not forget that a farmer somewhere will want to be paid to have this bar fridge sized thing with a satellite dish attached surrounded by a fence in the middle of his favourite paddock! Currently I'm told they are all mounted on existing Airservices VHF outlet or other already owned towers. Someone has to pay.

To my mind the next achievable ideal state would be to first control all IFR aircraft where the terrestrial system is adequate, (Class E) and then have space based receivers looking into every nook and cranny of airspace downloading pictures to the ATC centres. The safety benefit will be to be able to have ATC separation of all IFR aircraft from each other, regardless of altitude, and also to assist similarlly equipped VFR aircraft if they need assistance. (If we were able to adopt the US UATS the VFR aircraft could also see each other) More is possible in the more distant future if autonomous aircraft are anything to go by, but one step at a time.
Mr Approach is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 11:36
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I must say it annoys me like nothing else, that as a skipper of a high capacity airliner, that it's 2017, and we are still lobbing into 'Capital cities' i.e. Hobart or large provincial cities like Launy, Mackay or Rocky that are still procedural. Either up your game ASA and put in the infrastructure that is required to operate a world class airspace or hand it over to someone that can.

There are no excuses. Radar. End of story. Spend the effing money. Train the people. Upgrade the god damn towers. Rant over. FFS!
Flava Saver is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 11:58
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Hmmm... Lest we forget, I've been warning for many years now that terrorists will use GPS as a drone bomb guidance system. I have warned not to get totally reliant on GPS based systems. I have received much derision and abuse over this subject. Well, its here now...

ADS-B needs GPS to function. Terrorist bomb drones also use GPS to hit their targets. The escalating abilitys of the terrorist drone makers means it wont be long now before there is a major drone bomb incident in Australia. At this time there is no real way to stop GPS guided terrorist bomb drones except to scramble fighter jets at a million plus dollars per drone shot-down, or, turn off GPS.... turn off GPS and what are all those ADS-B reliant users going to do ?

Israel now has a bit of experience with terrorist drones and with the best airforce on the planet they still don't know what to do about the problem. And it will only get worse...
"... In recent years, several Iranian-made drones sent by Hezbollah and Hamas managed to infiltrate Israeli territory with impunity. Meanwhile, the Defense Ministry..." continues - Ynetnews News - The Defense Ministry's failed handling of Hezbollah drone threat


The terrorists are getting into this drone warfare in a big way...
"...Handwritten notes instructed ISIS drone operators to write daily “mission reports” and monthly reports “about the challenges and difficulties you face as well.”
All the accounts were headed “board of development and military manufacturing,”..."
https://worldisraelnews.com/isis-usi...icide-bombers/


"...In a new threat to the West, the Islamic State on Tuesday debuted on social media a commercially available drone dropping small bombs with pinpoint accuracy onto Iraqi targets in and around Mosul.
The new capability raises the specter that the Islamic State one day could attack urban areas from the air, not just on the ground. The U.S. military is alarmed by the terrorist army’s quick technological advances..."
ISIS drone dropping precision bombs alarms U.S. military - Washington Times


Meanwhile, just north of Australia, the terrorists are recruiting potential drone bomb experts...
"... Counter-terror chief Suhardi Alius said the group of returnees included several graduates, including physics and IT specialists... these well-educated people are also inspired,..." ...interesting that Inspire is also the name of a terrorist magazine. Indonesia 'deradicalising' 75 people deported from Turkey over Islamic State links - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


Until such time as there is a viable anti-terrorist drone defence we should retain all radars and non GPS nav aids... what's left of them at any rate..







.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 12:32
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,837
Received 16 Likes on 6 Posts
Industrial action? Really?!? To what end? How? Why do the peanuts always blame systemic problems on industrial action?

Affordable safety Dick, affordable safety. The beancounters are the ones in charge - go and ask them. The only thing outrageous are your accusations.

Last edited by le Pingouin; 7th Feb 2017 at 13:49.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 20:05
  #10 (permalink)  
Gne
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: With the Wizard
Posts: 183
Received 46 Likes on 23 Posts
Before we all go chasing rabbits when we should be looking for foxes

As Ron Cooper (COCFS) once told me, "It is very hard to argue with someone who is unencumbered with a basic knowledge of the facts."

Let me restate an earlier post in the other thread on this topic.

It is a pity this discussion will likely continue for several days with uninformed input from most posters. And it is also a pity the reporter was also not properly informed.

Both deficiencies would be remedied if someone (perhaps the regulatory agency) commissioned a report from a multi disciplinary group of experts on the safety benefit of surveillance in airspace. Such report should include a tutorial on the various surveillance technologies and be peer reviewed.

The report could then be published so that important discussions such as this could continue on an informed basis. Perhaps then we would see a mutually beneficial result and not nitpicking and personal attacks.



Oh... I understand CASA commissioned such a report some years ago. Perhaps it could be updated and the updated version made available. In the meantime does anyone have a link to the original report?

Gne
Gne is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 22:01
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Let me give you a scenario of a typical next fatal accident.

A Piper Navajo has been chartered to take 7 passengers from Narrabri to Coffs Harbour. On descent into Coffs Harbour, the pilot makes a simple error and descends on the normal 3 degree glideslope to the aerodrome, forgetting about the mountain ridge – possibly distracted by a sick passenger.

He is on an IFR flight plan and paying full IFR enroute charges. The Navajo has required an expensive ADS-B unit to be fitted. But does that help?

There is no requirement for a ground proximity warning system or TAWS in the aircraft. No doubt the pilot is told not to descend below the DME steps, but there is absolutely no alarm system set up in the Brisbane Centre and there is a chance that the air traffic controller might be looking at his or her TSAD display (if there is one in the Coffs Tower) but of course that is just for ‘situational awareness.’

What happens? Everyone is killed.

Now look at the AMATS system that was accepted for implementation by the Labor Government. It would have been Class E airspace – run by the enroute controller, with all of the alarms empowered. Once ADS-B was added, there would be an even more accurate reading of the aircraft.

However even before ADS-B, there was a radar head at Point Lookout nearby which would have given perfect coverage to prevent an aircraft from hitting the mountain.

So there you have it. An accident waiting to happen. A repeat of Benalla. All dead. ADSB a total waste of money re safety improvement !

Proserpine is similar. It is just sheer bastardry and resistance to change from people at Airservices and CASA that have stopped us from going ahead with a proven system that was Government policy.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 7th Feb 2017 at 22:11.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2017, 22:53
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
So, traffic lights at every intersection.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 8th Feb 2017, 19:40
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Above the Trenches
Posts: 189
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Just spent $8500 having a new transponder fitted to my 45yo GA aeroplane. The cost is prohibitive for most.
However, having operated an RPT jet into places with no tower for years, I well know the feeling when you are trying to separate from light aircraft that can't/won't talk or use a transponder. I want everybody to see me, all it takes is one...
The Baron is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2017, 01:02
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What I don't get is the exemption for Private IFR flights, which is restricted to class G, E, and class C providing you are flying to a class D airfield. Why aren't you allowed to fly into class C CTR? For example, I can fly through class C into Parafield (class D) but I can't land at Adelaide (class C CTR) but Adelaide doesn't have an ADS-B receiver (as of June 2016)!!! So if I had ADS-B I can fly into Adelaide, but it wouldn't make any difference as they can only use radar and SSR. If I do not have ADS-B then I can't fly into Adelaide despite the fact that they are only going to use radar and SSR! Casa Instrument number CASA 114/16 has got to be one of the most useless pieces of mindless bureaucratic rubbish ever!!!
Dexta is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2017, 02:11
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
Via The Baron:
...having operated an RPT jet into places with no tower for years, I well know the feeling when you are trying to separate from light aircraft that can't/won't talk or use a transponder. I want everybody to see me, all it takes is one...
"All it takes is one..." One terrorist 'air-mine' bomb drone hovering in wait above the airfield - and they don't have transponders. Now, there are even more reasons for pilots to look out the front window.

Sometimes i get the impression that it is all to much hard work for some of them RPT drivers to look out the front window. Much easier to keep eyes in on the dails even on a severe clear day. Considering there's two of them per aircraft yer gotta wonder..






.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2017, 03:09
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Bloggs. Traffic lights at each intersection ( or its equivalent ) would be un affordable .

Using the existing equipment and changing an airspace chart and enabling an alarm would be quite affordable .

Why lead the world with the best and most accurate and the most expensive ADSB but then only really use it above FL290 where the risk has always been minimal. ?

Why not copy the best in the world. It's helped me make a dollar and live during five flights around the world .
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2017, 04:12
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,837
Received 16 Likes on 6 Posts
If we were to copy the "best" we'd need to add a significant number of controllers, spend a huge amount on training, add more consoles and add plenty more ADS-B outlets. Care to write the cheque? Still affordable?

You keep claiming it would cost next to nothing, yet the people who would be doing it say it would cost a motza.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2017, 04:35
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think people are missing the main point of this thread. Never let facts get in the way of a good rant.
fujii is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2017, 05:09
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YXXX
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not sure on Dick's motives here. If this is not meant to offend controllers, and going to effect change in the regs, why is he posting here? Clearly should be meeting with ASA and CASA. Not bitching on a forum with pilots and ATC!
We can't do anything about it. Those ATCs in procedures do try and get better things through, but not on the scale that he's looking for. Your gripes should be directed at Canberra and not us. (inb4 he's not attacking ATCs. "If America can do it, why can't you?" doesn't really sit well.)
BlockNotAvailable is offline  
Old 9th Feb 2017, 06:17
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 608
Received 67 Likes on 27 Posts
Originally Posted by BlockNotAvailable
I'm not sure on Dick's motives here. If this is not meant to offend controllers, and going to effect change in the regs, why is he posting here? Clearly should be meeting with ASA and CASA. Not bitching on a forum with pilots and ATC!
You're new here, then?
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.